Stanger 2001.consultancy report disappearance
Dear Caerphilly County Borough Council,
Please release all documentation about:
1. why CCBC claims to no longer be in possession of the consultancy report Stanger 2001, which specified in its conclusion that CCBC was “knowingly” allowing pollution of controlled waters to happen.
2. Why other consultancy literature reviews since seem to make zero reference to that important Stanger 2001 report conclusion which may show a pattern of legal breach given confirmed lack of discharge consent
3. We note CCBC has supplied a resident with a copy of Stanger 2001 report not so long ago. When did the report disappear at CCBC?
4. Penrhos chemical egress to Nant Ty’r Arllwyd and over pavement in new housing estate
5. Whether CCBC has ever actually carried out a full due process EPA Part 2A determination of Ty Llwyd or alternatively has merely relied on an incompletely reviewing consultant’s opinion instead in some undefined sub-compliant process.
For manifest reasonableness of this request , please see https://bylines.cymru/environment/pcbs-i...
Please note any insubstantive or delayed response is likely to be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Yours faithfully,
Paul Cawthorne
Thank you for your recent FOI / EIR request. Please find attached an acknowledgement for this request.
##################################################################################### Mae'r e-bost hwn ac unrhyw ffeiliau sy'n atodol yn gyfrinachol a dim ond ar gyfer defnydd yr unigolyn neu'r sefydliad y cyfeiriwyd atynt. Os ydych wedi derbyn yr e-bost hwn ar gam rhowch wybod i reolwr eich system. Nodwch fod unrhyw sylwadau neu farn o fewn testun yr e-bost yw sylwadau a barn yr awdur yn unig ac nid yn angenrheidiol yn cynrychioli barn Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Caerffili. I orffen, dylai'r person sy'n derbyn yr e-bost sicrhau nad oes firws ynghlwm nac mewn unrhyw ddogfen atodol i'r e-bost. Nid yw'r Cyngor yn derbyn unrhyw gyfrifoldeb am unrhyw ddifrod achoswyd gan unrhyw firws sy'n cael ei drosglwyddo gan yr e-bost hwn. Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg, Saesneg neu'n ddwyieithog (yn unol â'ch dewis), ac mewn ieithoedd a fformatau eraill. Cewch ymateb yn unol â'ch dewis iaith os nodwch hynny i ni, ac ni fydd cyfathrebu â ni yn Gymraeg yn arwain at oedi. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Caerphilly County Borough Council. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The Council accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. We welcome correspondence in English, Welsh or bilingually (according to your choice) or in other languages and formats. We will respond in your declared chosen language, and corresponding with us in Welsh will not lead to any delay. #####################################################################################
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for this acknowledgment. Please note that external agencies will be closely monitoring your response to this request to see whether it is substantive or institutionally evasive.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Cawthorne
Dear WWW: FOI,
Please would you respond on the public record here in statutory timescale.
Thanks,,
Paul Cawthorne
Dear Paul Cawthorne
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 - INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your request dated 21^st September 2023. We have considered
your request and provide the following information:
Please release all documentation about:
1. Why CCBC claims to no longer be in possession of the consultancy
report Stanger 2001, which specified in its conclusion that CCBC was
‘knowingly’ allowing pollution of controlled waters to happen.
The Council has not claimed to no longer be in possession of the report.
We have the report and a copy of the report was provided to you in EIR
request 22/0886.
2. Why other consultancy literature reviews since seem to make zero
reference to that important Stanger 2001 report conclusion which may show
a pattern of legal breach given confirmed lack of discharge consent.
We understand the requirement for a discharge consent relates to the newly
installed drainage system, it does not relate to the fact that leachate
may be emanating from the ground from a legacy site. As previously
explained, when a part 2A assessment is undertaken it relies on data at a
specific point in time, hence why there is so much monitoring ongoing at
the moment. The report needs to consider what risk the site currently
poses.
3. We note that CCBC has supplied a resident with a copy of the Stanger
2001 report not so long ago. When did the report disappear at CCBC?
Please see response to Q1.
4. Penrhos chemical egress to Nant Ty’r Arllwyd and over pavement in new
housing estate.
There was no chemical egress over the pavement in the new housing estate
to our knowledge and we are not aware of the Nant Ty’r Arllwyd.
5. Whether CCBC has ever actually carried out a full due process EPA
part 2A determination of Ty Llwyd or alternatively has merely relied
on incompletely reviewing consultant’s opinion instead in some
undefined sub-compliant process.
Please refer to the response provided to you in EIR response 22/0886. As
previously advised, the Council undertook a Part 2A assessment back in
2013 where it was concluded that the site posed no risk to controlled
waters. The Council are currently working through this process once again
and the conclusions will be communicated following our investigation.
We supply this information based on your original request. If this is not
what you wanted or if you feel we have not fully understood your request
please do not hesitate to contact me to clarify your exact requirements.
Please note that we have dealt with your enquiry under the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004. Environmental information is exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by a Section 39
exemption. This exemption exists due to provision for access to this type
of information already being provided for by the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004. Therefore in accordance with Section 17 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice to supply
this information under the Freedom of Information Act.
If you have any queries or concerns or are in any way dissatisfied with
the handling of your request please contact us.
Yours sincerely
CORPORATE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE UNIT
Freedom of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations
2004
You have the right to appeal against our decision.
If you wish to appeal please set out If you are unhappy with that decision
in writing your grounds of appeal you have the right to appeal to:
and send to:
Information Unit
Caerphilly county borough council, Information Commissioner’s Office –
Penallta House Wales
Tredomen Park 2nd Floor, Churchill House
Hengoed. CF82 7PG Churchill Way
Cardiff CF10 2HH
Appeals will be determined by an
appropriate senior officer. Telephone: 0330 414 6421
Website: [1]www.ico.org.uk
Email: [2][email address]
Re-use of information without permission may infringe the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988. Re-use can include, but is not limited to,
making multiple copies, publishing and issuing copies of the information
to a wider audience. If you would like to re-use copyright material owned
by Caerphilly County Borough Council, please contact us. Authorisation to
re-use copyright material not owned by this Authority should be sought
directly from the copyright owner.
How we will use your information
Caerphilly County Borough Council will process your request, the
information relevant to your request, your identity and contact details
for the purposes of providing you with a response. A copy of your request
and your response will be kept for 3 years. Some requests and responses
may be kept longer but this will be in an anonymised form.
Your request including your identity and contact details will be
distributed to relevant service areas and elected members who may either
hold the information you have requested or are involved in the processing
of requests. Other organisations and individuals who may be affected by
the disclosure of the information you have requested may be consulted
prior to a decision being made on the disclosure.
If you have made a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO)
or others in relation to the processing of your request, copies of your
request, response and any additional correspondence between you and
Caerphilly County Borough Council in relevant to your request may be
shared with them.
You have a number of rights in relation to your information including the
right of access to information we hold about you and the right of
complaint if you are unhappy with the way that we have handled your
request or your information.
For further information on how we process your information and your rights
please click the following link:
[3]https://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/Caerphilly...
References
Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/Caerphilly...
Dear WWW: FOI,
Ref 4, apologies, predictive text inserted wrong suffix after Nant. It’s Nant Gledyr, as I’m confident you are aware from all the conversations CCBC senior officers have with new estate residents association leader John Skuse (including a home visit from a now very senior employee of Public Health Wales), to which his six thick files bear testimony.
Email with the photos of the toxic leachate oozing through the pavement and on the road just sent to Maria Godfrey and FoI. Please review response above in the light of this email and reissue.
(CCBC will of course recall the construction of the basket cage just downstream, let’s not pretend longer.)
It appears the careful wording of your reply to 5 is tacit acceptance that the “full due process” determination version of Part 2A compliance did not in fact happen. Please correct me with reference to each stage of the due process if you meant otherwise.
What further avenues of CCBC collective amnesia should be anticipated?
“We understand the requirement for a discharge consent relates to the newly installed drainage system, it does not relate to the fact that leachate may be emanating from the ground from a legacy site. “
CCBC’s understanding here appears as potentially legally deficient as not understanding a discharge consent was needed for the new work. Previously undertaken works inside the site affecting flow before the installation of the new system outside the site will also have given rise to the legal need for a discharge consent, won’t they? Please review your previous response to legal standard and reissue.
Please release documentation showing whether or not Alison Pugh of Arcadis has been provided with a copy of the unredacted 2001 version of the Stanger report, to ensure a full and truthful record of what previous reports stated is part of any desk-based assessment within ambiguous new claimed Part 2A contaminated land determination process.
Yours patiently,
Paul Cawthorne
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now